Your HR and Payroll compliance and policy solution! Comply with federal, state, and international laws, find answers to your most challenging questions, get timely updates with email alerts, and more with our suite of products.

Oct. 5 — Police
mistreatment of a young black man was at the heart of oral argument at the U.S. Supreme
Court Oct. 5, but the justices had to grapple with a procedural issue instead (
Manuel v. City of Joliet, U.S., No. 14-9496
, argued
10/5/16
).

Elijah Manuel claims he was harassed and beaten during a traffic stop and that officers
knowingly falsified drug tests. Manuel says he was unlawfully jailed for 47 days because
of those tests.

But before Manuel can sue the city of Joliet, Ill. for the wrongful detention, the
justices first have to decide whether he can bring his claims in federal court. Depending
on which constitutional provision the Supreme Court looks to in support of Manuel’s
civil rights claim, he could be sent to state court, or no court at all.

During oral argument the city appeared to agree with Manuel that he had a Fourth Amendment
claim for the allegedly improper detention. That would allow his claim to be heard
in federal court—maybe.

Manuel still has to show that he filed his civil rights case in time. That statute
of limitations question was one the justices struggled with, leading Justice Elena
Kagan to say that the high court should just leave that question to the lower court.

Due Process or Fourth Amendment?

Manuel brought his claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which allows individuals to sue cities and their officials for constitutional violations.
Manuel said the city violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
seizure when police falsified the drug tests and wrongfully detained him.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit disagreed. That court said that
the Fourth Amendment “falls away at the arraignment,” Kagan explained.

Any civil rights violations beyond that must be based on the due process clause of
the 14th Amendment, the Seventh Circuit said.

That would kick Manuel's claims out to state court, as Illinois provides an “adequate
state law remedy”
for such a violation, the Seventh Circuit said.

Fourth Amendment violations, however, aren't extinguished even if there are adequate
state law remedies to address the constitutional violation.

Where’s the Line?

Kagan pointed out that the Seventh Circuit is the only circuit to hold that a claim
like Manuel’s, which extends to detention beyond arraignment, can’t be brought under
the Fourth Amendment.

Even the city didn’t agree with the Seventh Circuit. During oral argument, the city’s
attorney, Michael Scodro of Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, said the Fourth Amendment
does support a claim for improper detention.

Several justices wondered where the line was on when the Fourth Amendment no longer
applied. Would the Fourth Amendment support a claim all the way through to a conviction,
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer suggested the Fourth Amendment would give way whenever there
is a conviction. At that point, the defendant isn’t detained because of the false
evidence, he said, but rather because of the conviction.

Cherry Picking?

Even with the line still unclear, there seemed to be a good chance that the court
would allow Manuel to bring his Fourth Amendment claim. The issue then became whether
Manuel brought that claim in time.

The statute of limitations doesn’t begin to run until there is a “favorable termination”
of Manuel’s detention, according to Manuel’s attorney
Stanley Eisenhammer of Hodges, Loizzi, Eisenhammer, Rodick &
Kohn LLP in Arlington Heights, Ill. That’s when the charges against Manuel were dropped
and he was released from detention, Eisenhammer argued.

That’s borrowing from malicious prosecution claims, Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr. said. But malicious prosecution has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment, he
said.

Eisenhammer countered that in Section 1983 claims, federal courts must determine the
elements of the constitutional claims. In doing so, they can pull from the “closest
state analogy,”
he said.

Here, that’s malicious prosecution, Eisenhammer said. So the court can pull elements
of malicious prosecution into the Section 1983 claim—including the “favorable termination”
statute of limitations element, he said.

That seems like “results-oriented cherry picking,” Roberts said.

Procedural Hurdles to Race Considerations

Scodro went further, and said that malicious prosecution wasn’t the most analogous
state claim. Instead, it’s unlawful arrest.

In that case, the statute of limitations would begin to run whenever there is independent
“legal process,”
like an arraignment, Scodro said.

Breyer noted, however, that while the overwhelming number of circuits recognize this
kind of Fourth Amendment claim, they disagree on the statute of limitations question.

Perhaps the Supreme Court should send the case back to the Seventh Circuit to sort
it out, Kagan suggested.

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)